Roundup: It’s Time to Play Monday Morning Quarterback

So the Saints went marching in to Miami, and now they are Super Bowl champions. But despite their miraculous win over the Colts, let’s be honest…this Bowl was all about the commercials. So did the Tebow/Focus on the Family ad live up to the hype?

Meh.

To be fair, there was a LOT of hype to live up to, as opinions on the ad were divided and heated. According to Rassmussen, less that half of the people surveyed agreed with CBS’s decision to run the FoF ad during the Super Bowl (Of course, the anti-choice community found their own polling to claim everyone was supportive of the ad). The Washington Post dedicated their letters section to debating the merits of even debating the commercial.

Personally, I didn’t really notice the commercial. I spent the first 10 seconds trying to figure out what Mary Steenburgen was promoting. Once I figured out that it was in fact that infamous Tim Tebow ad, I was trying to decide why he was tacking him mom, since he’s a quarterback and that’s not really his thing. Maybe she was too heavy to throw? Next thing I knew, it was done, and there was another Doritos ad running.

The
second commercial plans to go further than the first and will reveal
more details about Pam
Tebow’s decision not to have an abortion than CBS would allow
in the first ad already planned for during the Super Bowl.

This
Super Bowl surprise has Focus unveiling a second ad that will also
feature him Tebow and his mother and it was filmed in Orlando at the
same time last month as the ad that has garnered so much attention.

Focus
on the Family won’t reveal the details of this surprise second ad,
but CEO Jim Daly confirmed to USA Today that this ad goes further
and it appears to be the original ad CBS rejected before it worked
with the station on a revised commercial fitting its standards.

In the end, I suppose Focus on the Family feels good, because their "brilliant marketing strategy" got them approximately $10 million in media mentions for about $3 million dollars. And thanks to efforts like "Tailgate for Choice," many pro-choice groups got to reap some financial benefit as well. I doubt anyone changed their stance on choice based on what actually occurred on the screen.

But the biggest victory is likely Tim Tebow’s. Odds are that is the only Super Bowl performance he’s ever going to make.

Well, as far as I am concerned, all the people who freaked over the add ought to be ashamed. Re “species” Don’t treat your readers like dunces-clearly that is a play on many environmentalist’s message of “save the whales,” while totally ignoring the fact that certain groups of people are being totally wiped out by abortion. While black individuals comprise thirteen percent of our population, black women receive over thirty percent of abortions, thanks, in part, to the likes of Planned Parenthood intentionally setting up shop in minority neighborhoods. I grew up in a predominantly white area. Think there was an abortion clinic nearby? Nada. You had to go to the next town which is has a much higher ratio of African Americans and Hispanics. And, moreover, sometimes I’ve wanted to use the same “endangered species” tactic for disabled children, as in “save the down syndrome people,” since more people seem concerned with saving the whales than with the prejudice that leads ninety percent of women whose fetuses are diagnosed with DS to seek an abortion.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

crowepps

certain groups of people are being totally wiped out by abortion.

This is alarming — who? Who is being "totally wiped out by abortion"?

It can’t be Black people, their fertility rate is still 30% higher than that of Caucasians even after abortion.

It can’t be people with Down’s Syndrome — aborting even 90% of the present group won’t change the number caused by the recurring DNA recombinant problem that occurs statistically in a certain percentage of pregnancies. It does seem a little cold to be scornful towards the women who abort those pregnancies when the societyal prejudice against DS is effected by marginalizing the lives of DS individuals. Abortion may be the only way the women can protect that child from society’s prejudice.

crowepps

The Tebow commercial wasn’t much of anything, but I’ve got to say, did anybody else notice the misogyny in some of the other ads? Even my son-in-law was taken aback by the one about ‘shopping with your girlfriend during the superbowl? Take off that skirt’.

jodi-jacobson

That African American women are unable to make decisions for themselves on their use of contraception, access to family planning services, pap smears, breast exams and access to abortion services?

Are you suggesting that African American women who choose abortion are incapable of making those decisions?

Are you even remotely aware of the fact that a large movement for reproductive justice in this country led by African American, Latina, and Asian women has advocated specifically for increasing access to such services in low-income neighborhoods so that women and men in those neighborhoods have access to a wide range of services?

Your inability to think outside your own box is revealing.

I trust women to make decisions for themselves. The reality? Higher income people are more likely to have private insurance. Lower-income people are more likely to depend on subsidized services for a wide range of care, including Planned Parenthoods among other such services.

A little fact and a little knowledge go a long way toward dispelling these sorts of ignorant claims.

Jodi Jacobson

progo35

“Abortion may be the only way the women can protect that child from society’s prejudice.”

Digusting. It’s the old “take the kid off the playground” trick-ie, Mothers: don’t fight against society’s prejudice-accede to it by aborting your down syndrome children so that they world’s prejudices are mollified!”

PS. Since you, crowepps are prejudiced against the handicapped, as evidenced by your comments regarding disabled people and adoption, I’m not surprised.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

ahunt

Snerk…geez progo…you set the shame bar mighty low.

You must go through life riddled with guilt.

crowepps

It doesn’t seem to me that it would be too pleasure for the child, being the club with which his mother "fights against society’s prejudice". Seems downright painful, in fact.

Had to laugh at your description of me as "prejudiced against the handicapped". As I recall our prior discussion, to be very un-politically correct blunt, what I said was "crazy people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children" and "dying people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children". I still don’t understand why you think either one is a good idea.

invalid-0

“According to Rassmussen, less that half of the people surveyed agreed with CBS’s decision to run the FoF ad during the Super Bowl”

To be clear, according to that Rassmussen poll, 45% agreed with the decision, 30% disagreed and 25% had no opinion. But excellent job word-smithing to make it look like the poll agreed with your position! Journalism at its finest.

prochoiceferret

Re "species" Don’t treat your readers like dunces-clearly that is a play on many environmentalist’s message of "save the whales," while totally ignoring the fact that certain groups of people are being totally wiped out by abortion.

Oh, so you think that "certain groups of people" (i.e. Black people) are like whales, eh? Large, slow and dumb? No wonder you like to deny blatant racism when others call attention to it—you engage in it yourself! How does it feel to be swimming miles below the surface of white privilege?

And, moreover, sometimes I’ve wanted to use the same "endangered species" tactic for disabled children

Oh, so the disabled are like whales too! Not only are you an inveterate racist, you clearly have a deep-set hatred of people with disabilities. Perhaps you should seek professional help to sort through your destructive prejudices instead of commenting on a progressive site like RHRealityCheck.

progo35

Crowepps-that’s NOT what you said. You said that anyone with any history of mental illness whatsoever shouldn’t be allowed to adopt. Moreover, perhaps you are too prejudiced to understand that disabled people inherently fight against society’s prejudice whether their parents are interested in doing so or not. Moreover, disabled people have the same right to confront any barrier that society places in their way that women and other minorities do. Aborting disabled people to "protect" them is a disgusting way to accede to society’s desire that disabled people not exist. I fight against ableist prejudice every day-FOR ME, not my parents, and no one else. Your assertions show that you have bought society’s prejudice against the handicapped, hook, line and sinker. I feel sorry for you.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

crowepps

Speaking from personal experience, people with mental illnesses don’t make optimum parents and sometimes make disastrous ones. Given a limited number of children available and a choice between someone who has all the qualities to be an optimum parent and someone who more than likely doesn’t, you bet I’d pick the healthier person. Who wouldn’t? The purpose is to give the adopted child the best possible home, not to sacrifice the child to provide an illusion of normality for an adult who wants the illusion of being ‘normal’ or provide a companion for someone who is lonely.

Aborting disabled people to "protect" them is a disgusting way to accede to society’s desire that disabled people not exist.

It may be disgusting in your eyes, but in order to stop it, society is going to have to first stop marginalizing the disabled and the mentally ill.

I fight against ableist prejudice every day-FOR ME, not my parents, and no one else.

And your anger and bitterness and feelings of being persecuted certainly aren’t doing much to convince anybody that being disabled isn’t a horrible, life-destroying disaster. The louder you scream about the horrors of ‘ableism’ and how society wishes disabled people didn’t exist, the more women are convinced their children would suffer terribly if they allowed them to be born and it would be more merciful to abort them. After all, what would it be like for a child with a really severe handicap if Progo has is a learning disability and she is filled with rage and disgust at the terrible way society treats her?

Your assertions show that you have bought society’s prejudice against the handicapped, hook, line and sinker. I feel sorry for you.

And I feel bad for you, since your insistence in seeing yourself as a persecuted victim seems to be consuming your life to little purpose. My daughter has pretty severe dyslexia, but instead of whining about how everybody is prejudiced against her, she’s working full-time, raising two kids and writing a book. She doesn’t expect anybody to give her special consideration because of her disability, and she doesn’t let it get in her way either. If people are jerks about it, she figures they’re jerks.

progo35

"It may be disgusting in your eyes, but in order to stop it, society is going to have to first stop marginalizing the disabled and the mentally ill."

Marginalization is exactly what you did in the previous paragraph by insisting that anyone with any kind of mental illness is automatically a poor parent.

"After all, what would it be like for a child with a really severe handicap if Progo has is a learning disability and she is filled with rage and disgust at the terrible way society treats her?"

Fine, Crowepps, discrimination against the handicapped does fill me with rage and disgust. So does child molestation and world hunger. Should I stop "whining" about those issues, too, because some women might have abortions in response to their fear of such injustices?
As for being productive, I think I’ve mentioned that I graduated cum laude from school and am now pursuing a degree in musicology, a field that will eventually entail work in higher education/academia. Yes, Crowepps, I’m just frittering my life away, feeling bitter. :)

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

crowepps

Marginalization is exactly what you did in the previous paragraph by insisting that anyone with any kind of mental illness is automatically a poor parent.

I know lots of people who had or have mental illnesses who are great parents to their own children. What we’re talking about, however, is how to choose a home for a child available for adoption, in a venue where there are lots of different homes available to that child.

I’m not sure how up you are on the requirements to qualify as an adoptive parent, but besides being in ‘good health’ you also must be between 21 and 39, have a steady job, have a ‘nice’ home, a stable marriage, etc., and a bundle of cash to pay all the fees. At some agencies, whether you go to church is even a factor. Does that mean that they are discriminating against younger and older people, the self-employed, those who live in apartments, the unmarried and atheists? People in all of those groups may be great parents. What the adoption agency is trying to do is select the best possible home to meet the CHILD’S needs based on factors that have been shown to provide an optimum home. 6.5% of adoptions fail, to the great detriment of the children involved. Why risk the child? Why set the parent up to fail?

Two decades of research have unequivocally indicated that children who have a parent with mental illness are at significantly greater risk for multiple psychosocial problems (Beardslee et al., 1996a; Canino, Bird, Rubio-Stipec, Bravo & Algeria, 1990; Oyserman, Mowbray, Meares & Firminger, 2000). Studies have noted rates of child psychiatric diagnosis among offspring ranging from approximately 30% to 50% (Canino et al.; Oyserman et al.), as compared to an estimated rate of 20% among the general child population (Friedman, Katz-Leavy, Manderscheid, & Sondheimer, 1996). These same children are more likely to show developmental delays, lower academic competence, and difficulty with social relationships (Barocas, Seifer, & Sameroff, 1985; Oyserman et al.; Sameroff & Seifer, 1983; Weintraub & Neal, 1984). Despite these risks, many children of parents with mental illness are resilient and appear to "avoid" significant problems (Beardslee & Poderofsky, 1988).

A Deakin University psychologist is shocked the State Government’s Suicide Prevention Taskforce has ignored the high risk of suicide by children of mentally ill parents.

…

She said the taskforce failed to recognise children of mentally ill parents as a high risk group for suicide despite research showing this group was eight times more likely to attempt suicide than the general population.

…

Ms Holgate said the children of mentally ill parents often had to take on adult responsibilities.

She said this isolated children from their peers and affected their ability to develop relationships in adult life.

"The children have to take on responsibilities beyond their years, such as cooking and looking after younger siblings. Professionals encourage children to take on these responsibilities and it places an enormous burden on them," she said.

"They tend to have lower self-esteem as adults, don’t know how to have fun and are more prone to anxiety and depression."